• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Loan

Re: Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Lo

The Barbarian said:
Not going to tie this to anyone ….... but it's clear that pressure was put on these banks to make loans that shouldn't have been made ..

What the CRA does, in effect, is compel banks to seek the permission of community activists to get regulatory approval for bank expansions and mergers. Often this means striking a deal with activist groups such as ACORN or unions like the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and agreeing to allocate credit to poor and minority areas that are underserved.
In short, the CRA encourages banks to make loans they would not ordinarily make. What's more, these agreements often require that banks offer no-money-down mortgages and remove caps on how much debt a borrower can take on. All of this is done in the name of "financial democracy."
Click to expand...
This looks like misinformation some 'conservative' radio talk show host fed you, surely you can do much better. Please show proof of this crap!!!
 
Re: Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Lo

The Barbarian said:
What would you call Charles Rangel ??? He is after all a congressman to is he not ? So your same theory applies?
Click to expand...

See my comments to this end. Government and individuals are not really the same.
 
Re: Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Lo

Ockham said:
Ahh... so it was the LAWYER who stated that, not a Tea Party Representative. So other than a Tea Party hit job piece... what else ya got?
Click to expand...

Really? So let me see if I understand this? Your attorney makes a statement on your behalf, that you don't personally refute, and it doesn't represent your position? Really?

Sounds like a rope a dope spin from a RW apologist to me.
 
Re: Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Lo

The Barbarian said:
Not going to tie this to anyone ….... but it's clear that pressure was put on these banks to make loans that shouldn't have been made ..

What the CRA does, in effect, is compel banks to seek the permission of community activists to get regulatory approval for bank expansions and mergers. Often this means striking a deal with activist groups such as ACORN or unions like the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and agreeing to allocate credit to poor and minority areas that are underserved.
In short, the CRA encourages banks to make loans they would not ordinarily make. What's more, these agreements often require that banks offer no-money-down mortgages and remove caps on how much debt a borrower can take on. All of this is done in the name of "financial democracy."
Click to expand...

And what punishment do the banks get for having a poor CRA score?

Secondly why did/does Texas generally escape the housing bubble, and why have Texas banks not gone under anywhere near the national average over the last few years?

If the CRA is all powerfull Texas should have as much a problem with mortgages and banks going under?

The CRA is an idiotic bogeyman. The CRA was minor factor in the housing crisis, and in the creation of subprime loans. The majority of Subprime originators were not subject to the CRA

In other words people want to blame the government for something private industry wanted to dom, and did with reckless abandon, whereever possible. It was not possible in Texas, as Texas has strict mortgage regulations and Texas does not have a mortgage default crisis. California did not have strict mortgage regulations, allowing the banks to make whatever types of loans they wanted, the banks did (then sold the loans)
 
Re: Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Lo

I think it's legitimate to question a congress person for such things.
I don't think it means anything significant with regards to the Tea Party.
I also agree that banks of course bear significant responsibility in who they lend to, and how much, etc.
Lord Tammerlain said:
In other words people want to blame the government for something .....
...California did not have strict mortgage regulations, allowing the banks to make whatever types of loans they wanted, the banks did (then sold the loans)
Click to expand...

Government not regulating what it has both agreed to regulate, and has seen catastrophic results of not regulating in the past (see prior bubbles related to banking), may be termed a problem with government, right? Government did both. It failed at regulation and it added fuel to the fire with housing policy, government backed lending, etc. That was my impression anyway. (not differntiating between federal and state here).
 
Last edited:
Re: Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Lo

Mach said:
I think it's legitimate to question a congress person for such things.
I don't think it means anything significant with regards to the Tea Party.
I also agree that banks of course bear significant responsibility in who they lend to, and how much, etc.


Government not regulating what it has both agreed to regulate, and has seen catastrophic results of not regulating in the past (see prior bubbles related to banking), may be termed a problem with government, right? Government did both. It failed at regulation and it added fuel to the fire with housing policy, government backed lending, etc. That was my impression anyway. (not differntiating between federal and state here).
Click to expand...

The CRA was a program to limit the amount of discrimination banks had when dealing with minority communities. The CRA would then "score" the bank" and that score could be used in determining if a bank could expand, merge or buyout other banks. It could not force banks to make bad loans. It certainly did not do so in Texas. Banks when the housing bubble got in full swing would have lent to a congressment with a horrible project, or to people with no income, no job and no visible means of being able to pay back the mortgage. Nothing in the CRA stated the banks would have to lend to such people. The banks wanted to lend because they could make money from doing so ( then sell the mortgage so they wouldnt have to worry about it failing).

Is/was the CRA a stupid program, probably, but it was not the cause of the housing crisis, poor regulation of the banks was far higher issue. If more states had regulations like Texas the housing crisis would have been far smaller, despite Texas being subject to the CRA, just like California
 
Re: Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Lo

Top Cat said:
Really? So let me see if I understand this? Your attorney makes a statement on your behalf, that you don't personally refute, and it doesn't represent your position? Really?
Click to expand...
Really.


Top Cat said:
Sounds like a rope a dope spin from a RW apologist to me.
Click to expand...
Doesn't change the fact your article, it's placement in the wrong forum and the content is a misinformation hit piece. :shrug:
 
Re: Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Lo

Top Cat said:
He's more than an "individual". He's a Congressman. A leader of the movement. Huge difference here.




No.
Click to expand...

Does Charlie Rangel propose raising taxes? What about Tim Geithner? Al Franken? Are they leaders?
 
Re: Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Lo

Top Cat said:
Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Loan | TPMMuckraker

I can see it now. The bank manager holding a gun to his head and making him take that money.

And here we have The Tea Party version of fiscal responsibility and accountability in action.

Just when you thought you'd seen it all.
Click to expand...

You make a good point. Are you consistent with someone you makes 30K a year who took out a $500K mortgage is also responsible for his/her actions.
 
Re: Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Lo

Hey, how about we make a small trip back in time. 1992, bank kiting scandal.

Few names you might recognize followed by the number of checks they bounced. Oh yeah, source : Business | The List: Bickering House Hurts Itself -- Final True Confession Tells Little About Scandal | Seattle Times Newspaper

Richard J. Durbin, D, 12
Barbara Boxer, D, 143
Maxine Waters, D, 5
Henry A. Waxman, D, 434.
John Jr. CONYERS, D, 273
Steny H. Hoyer, D, 3

So...what does that say about Dem leadership?
If you truly want to go down to the mud and be really partisan and affiliate that guy with the entire movement, well there you go and there are some serious leadership names in the above list.
 
Re: Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Lo

The arguement goes that it's only the "right" that demands personal accountability not the "left" so it's understandable those on the list above would write bad checks.

It's just like the excuses when a Dem gets caught with their pants down. eh, they aren't the ones argueing that cheating is wrong.
 
Re: Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Lo

1Perry said:
It's just like the excuses when a Dem gets caught with their pants down. eh, they aren't the ones argueing that cheating is wrong.
Click to expand...

No it's not. Money and morality are not the same.
 
Re: Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Lo

washunut said:
You make a good point. Are you consistent with someone you makes 30K a year who took out a $500K mortgage is also responsible for his/her actions.
Click to expand...

Sure. And in obvious cases such as this, it takes two to tango. The bank's stupidity shouldn't be rewarded either.
 
Re: Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Lo

Top Cat said:
Sure. And in obvious cases such as this, it takes two to tango. The bank's stupidity shouldn't be rewarded either.
Click to expand...

The bank is not rewarded in this scenario. In a foreclosure, both the person taking out the mortgage as well as the bank lose. As a matter of fact the home owner most times probably takes less of a hit.
 
Re: Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Lo

washunut said:
The bank is not rewarded in this scenario. In a foreclosure, both the person taking out the mortgage as well as the bank lose. As a matter of fact the home owner most times probably takes less of a hit.
Click to expand...

Sorry but in this scenario the bank gets a bailout by the government while the person declaring bankruptcy gets a severe hit on their credit And can't even get a gas card for several years while the bank gets to keep operating status quo.
 
Re: Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Lo

washunut said:
The bank is not rewarded in this scenario. In a foreclosure, both the person taking out the mortgage as well as the bank lose. As a matter of fact the home owner most times probably takes less of a hit.
Click to expand...

But now the bank won't take any hit. The taxpayers will
 
Re: Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Lo

sangha said:
But now the bank won't take any hit. The taxpayers will
Click to expand...

Not that it seems to matter, but the banks do take a hit unless F&F guarenteed the loan. What do you think happens when a house with a $400K mortgage sells for $250K. The government doesn't send a check to the banks.
 
Re: Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Lo

TheNextEra said:
Sorry but in this scenario the bank gets a bailout by the government while the person declaring bankruptcy gets a severe hit on their credit And can't even get a gas card for several years while the bank gets to keep operating status quo.
Click to expand...



Explain the bailout to the bank in this scenario.
 
Re: Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Lo

OpportunityCost said:
Hey, how about we make a small trip back in time. 1992, bank kiting scandal.

Few names you might recognize followed by the number of checks they bounced. Oh yeah, source : Business | The List: Bickering House Hurts Itself -- Final True Confession Tells Little About Scandal | Seattle Times Newspaper

Richard J. Durbin, D, 12
Barbara Boxer, D, 143
Maxine Waters, D, 5
Henry A. Waxman, D, 434.
John Jr. CONYERS, D, 273
Steny H. Hoyer, D, 3

So...what does that say about Dem leadership?
If you truly want to go down to the mud and be really partisan and affiliate that guy with the entire movement, well there you go and there are some serious leadership names in the above list.
Click to expand...

That has to be ignored you see... this is a tea party hit piece and your information is not in line with criticizing the tea party and making them out to be the evil boogie man (a.k.a. replacement for G.W. Bush as the doers of all things wrong scapegoat to protect this President's performance and administrations failings). By responding and answering such a post would be acknowledgement of wrong doing on the Democratic side and that's just NOT part of the partisan talking points.
 
Re: Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Lo

ksu_aviator said:
That is a very lame excuse.

However, one individual's actions or hypocrisy do not invalidate the principles behind the movement. Would you actually contend that borrowing more than you can repay is valid practice for an individual or a government?
Click to expand...

Starting a business is a risky venture. Half of all businesses fail within the first 1-5 years. It's just a fact. The job of the person starting the business is to do whatever it takes to make, what is often an emotional attachment to a dream, a reality. Thus, when writing a business plan (quite often, at best, a guessing game of future numbers), many will write a rosier picture than exists.

It's the job of the investor to protect their money or the money they are responsible for to asses the validity of the business plan. If you're in the job of investing money in new business, or making loans of any type, it's your responsibility to ferret out which are the best start-up plans. There are certainly no shortage to choose from.

After receiving the loan, it is the responsibility of the business owner to make good on that loan. It should have been spelled out quite clearly in the B-plan break even analysis whether it would be possible. If the break even doesn't show even a chance at break even should the business fail, then the investor didn't invest wisely.
 
Re: Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Lo

washunut said:
You make a good point. Are you consistent with someone you makes 30K a year who took out a $500K mortgage is also responsible for his/her actions.
Click to expand...

There's an essential difference here. People getting into mortgages they couldn't afford was because loans with no down payment were made available by the banks. If these loans had not been made available, they wouldn't have been made. Couple this with 20-30 years of bi-partisan support for the "ownership society" (to use the words of a certain President who will remain nameless). People didn't walk into banks and get something the bank wasn't willing to give them. The reason for anger over the foreclosures is because of their effect on everybody else. I've not missed one payment on my mortgage through all this economic crap, but because of the foreclosures, the value of my house has gone down to where I can't get what I paid for it -- through no fault of mine. People who did "play by the rules" are getting screwed and losing big portions of their personal wealth.

We had years of "you don't have to pay for things" on the government side -- low taxes and high spending. It was bound to slip over into private loans.

The article in the OP is crap. It's about a lawsuit. People (especially lawyers) say things in the course of a lawsuit that are complete BS. It's normal, and they all know it.
 
Re: Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Lo

rocket88 said:
There's an essential difference here. People getting into mortgages they couldn't afford was because loans with no down payment were made available by the banks. If these loans had not been made available, they wouldn't have been made. Couple this with 20-30 years of bi-partisan support for the "ownership society" (to use the words of a certain President who will remain nameless). People didn't walk into banks and get something the bank wasn't willing to give them. The reason for anger over the foreclosures is because of their effect on everybody else. I've not missed one payment on my mortgage through all this economic crap, but because of the foreclosures, the value of my house has gone down to where I can't get what I paid for it -- through no fault of mine. People who did "play by the rules" are getting screwed and losing big portions of their personal wealth.

We had years of "you don't have to pay for things" on the government side -- low taxes and high spending. It was bound to slip over into private loans.

The article in the OP is crap. It's about a lawsuit. People (especially lawyers) say things in the course of a lawsuit that are complete BS. It's normal, and they all know it.
Click to expand...

I did not mean to hold the banks harmless for making loans to folks they should have known could not pay. The trap I think was that they thought that the underlying asset would continue to rise so people could either refinance or sell at a profit. Once prices started to decline the game was up.

Let's also remember that many of the worst loans were made by mortgage companies, not banks. Most if not all these companies are out of business. BAC is in the trouble it is largely because it bought one of these companies.

There are always two sides to a bad deal. Here because of the layers there are more than two. You can also look at the big banks and investment companies that packaged these loans. You can also look at the pension funds and the like that chased yield and bought bonds without understanding, doing the homework to know what they were buying.

Plenty of bad actors all around. To try and pick one, seems like scapgoating. But that is just me.
 
Re: Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Lo

washunut said:
Not that it seems to matter, but the banks do take a hit unless F&F guarenteed the loan. What do you think happens when a house with a $400K mortgage sells for $250K. The government doesn't send a check to the banks.
Click to expand...

F&F didn't gaurantee the loan; The BOUGHT the loan. The govt paid money to BUY the loan and if the loan goes into default, the govt doesn't get its (our) money back. This is Finance 101. Which part is so incomprehensible?
 
Re: Tea Party Rep: Bank Should Have Known I Wouldn't Be Able To Repay $2.2 Million Lo

OpportunityCost said:
Hey, how about we make a small trip back in time. 1992, bank kiting scandal.

Few names you might recognize followed by the number of checks they bounced. Oh yeah, source : Business | The List: Bickering House Hurts Itself -- Final True Confession Tells Little About Scandal | Seattle Times Newspaper

Richard J. Durbin, D, 12
Barbara Boxer, D, 143
Maxine Waters, D, 5
Henry A. Waxman, D, 434.
John Jr. CONYERS, D, 273
Steny H. Hoyer, D, 3

So...what does that say about Dem leadership?
If you truly want to go down to the mud and be really partisan and affiliate that guy with the entire movement, well there you go and there are some serious leadership names in the above list.
Click to expand...

Are any of these people saying it's the bank's fault for giving them a checkbook?

Ockham said:
That has to be ignored you see... this is a tea party hit piece and your information is not in line with criticizing the tea party and making them out to be the evil boogie man (a.k.a. replacement for G.W. Bush as the doers of all things wrong scapegoat to protect this President's performance and administrations failings). By responding and answering such a post would be acknowledgement of wrong doing on the Democratic side and that's just NOT part of the partisan talking points.
Click to expand...

You've missed the point of this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom